学前行为与情绪量表在中国学前儿童中的应用
华弥之, 周仁来
(1.北京师范大学心理学院应用实验心理北京市重点实验室,北京100875;
2.北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室,北京100875;
3.中国科学院心理健康重点实验室,北京100101)
【摘要】目的:对学前行为与情绪量表(PreBERS)进行中文版修订,并考察其在中国学前儿童中的信效度。方法:在北京与上海两地8 所幼儿园收集PreBERS 中文版教师评定的有效数据819 份, 其中116 名儿童的老师参与一个月后重评,177 名儿童的家长也参与评定,另有70 名儿童的老师参与效标SDQ 教师用表的评定。结果:探索性因子分析抽取4 个特征根>1.33 的因子,累计方差解释率61.44%;验证性因素分析显示,χ2/df=2.487,IFI=0.917,CFI=0.917,RMSEA=0.066;各分量表与效标SDQ 的相关因子显著相关;各分量表Cronbach’s α 系数为0.868-0.932,重测信度为0.587-0.826;评分者信度0.309-0.478。中国学前儿童在PreBERS 各分量表及优势指数上的得分存在显著年龄差异,但不存在性别差异。结论:PreBERS 中文版具有良好心理测量学指标,适用于中国学前儿童的情绪行为评估。
【关键词】学前行为与情绪量表; 信度; 效度Reversion of Preschool Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale in Chinese Preschoolers: Validity and ReliabilityHUA Mi-zhi, ZHOU Ren-laiBeijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology,School of Psychology,Beijing Normal University,Beijing 100875, China
【Abstract】Objective: To measure the validity and reliability of the Preschool Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale applied in Chinese preschoolers. Methods: 819 preschoolers from 8 distinct kindergartens in China were rated by their teachers, 116 of them were retested after a month, 177 of them were rated by their parents, 70 of them were also rated with SDQ by teachers. Results: The results of exploratory factor analysis indicated that PreBERS consisted of four factors, and the total variance explained 61.44% ; In confirmatory analysis, χ2/df =2.487,IFI =0.917,CFI =0.917,RMSEA=0.066; each subscale had significant correlation with the criterions; Cronbach’s α coefficients of the four subscales were between 0.868 and 0.932; the test-retest reliability of the four subscales were between 0.587 and 0.826; the cross-rater reliability of the four subscales were between 0.309 and 0.478. Age had a main effect on all the subscale scaled scores and the strength index, but there was no gender difference on either of them. Conclusion: The Chinese version of PreBERS had acceptable psychometric quality and can be applied in Chinese preschoolers.
【Key words】Preschool Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale; Reliability; ValidityChinese Journal of Clinical Psychology Vol. 20 No.3 2012